Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nasa Says Metals Fraud Caused $700M Satellite Failure

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 231 posts

Re: Nasa Says Metals Fraud Caused $700M Satellite Failure

#221

Post by elliekelly »

munk-a wrote: post #219
dror wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this discussion demonstrates the absurdity of corporations = people. If you prick it, does it bleed? If you tickle it, does it laugh? If you poison it, does it die?

So, this point bugs me. I am dead set against the decision to allow corporations to participate in our political system but nobody has ever said "So, mom, dad... this is Purdue Pharma - you can call him Fred for short - we're uh, we're getting married!". Corporations aren't people, they aren't human beings and they aren't homo-sapiens what they are is, quite accurately, legal "persons" when it comes to how a lot of U…

I think what you're getting at is the distinction between "persons" and "natural persons." Typically when a law applies to "persons" (sometimes it will say "legal persons") it applies to both corporations and humans for the reasons you've mentioned above - we need to be able to sue them, tax them, regulate them, etc. And when a law applies to "natural persons" it's intended to apply only to humans which is why, as much as you might love Amazon, you can't marry it. (So far no legal terminology to distinguish mountains that I'm aware of... )

To your point, corporations have always had "rights." The government can't just show up to your house and take your property without due process and, because corporations are "legal persons," the government can't just show up to company headquarters and take corporate property either. Corporations need some of the legal rights we grant to natural persons or else the corporate entity is pointless. But corporations also can't have the same rights as natural persons or else every stock broker is also a slave trader.

The reason the Citizens United ruling was such a big deal was because the court extended first amendment rights to corporations when those rights had historically only been given to natural persons. If you get a chance you should read the opinion because the rationale seems much more reasonable on paper than it is in practice. Contrary to public opinion, the court didn't rule that "corporations are people" (technically they always were) but rather that corporations are associations of natural persons and since natural persons can form associations to exercise their first amendment rights then they can form corporations to exercise their first amendment rights.

But for an entity whose purpose is to exist somewhere between human (definitely a person) and mountain (definitely not a person) it doesn't make sense to extend all of the rights of personhood to that entity just as it doesn't make sense to treat the entity the same way we treat a mountain. Lawyers can form associations to practice law but we certainly wouldn't allow a group to incorporate and have the entity sit for the bar exam... right? Citizens United certainly muddied the water in where the law draws that line.

Re: Nasa Says Metals Fraud Caused $700M Satellite Failure

#222

Post by ethagknight »

moftz wrote: post #139
ethagknight wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what I am wondering. In construction, we have third party testing of every major material in use, like daily concrete testing for new pours, weld inspections on steel, graded lumber, etc. hard to believe that NASA didn’t test their aluminum for a decade.

It was material that went into a frangible rail built by one company for a fairing built by another company, integrated into a rocket built by yet another company. Where would NASA have the time to test each and every bit of material going into the many-tiered parts of the design? NASA is relying on the prime contractor to make sure their vendors are on the up and up. The prime is making sure their vendors do their d…

For my projects, I’m buying the concrete structure, but it’s my general contractor hiring a subcontractor to place the concrete, and the architect reviews the third party laboratory tests. It’s a complicated for commonplace construction. NASA should have it figured out.

Re: Nasa Says Metals Fraud Caused $700M Satellite Failure

#223

Post by dang »

homonculus1 wrote: post #45
dsfyu404ed wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>First, this shouldn't be a "sometimes" thing, it should be a "never" thing. You get convicted for drugs, regardless of how much, and your life is forever changed. A lot of things should "never" happen but do. Life isn't fair. Some people have really bad luck.

What an asinine response. Bad luck should happen in spite of the law, not because of it.

Could you please review the site guidelines and not break them here?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Your comment would be just fine with just the second sentence.

Re: Nasa Says Metals Fraud Caused $700M Satellite Failure

#224

Post by zaarn »

Jabbles wrote: post #194
zaarn wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be my first instinct as well. Atleast when I interned metallworking, the supervisor did have atleast one lesson where they talked about making sure components don't fit into places they shouldn't. If two gears on a machine have different requirements then they should be made to not fit into eachother's places. It makes maintenance easier since there is only 1 correct way to build the machine from any set o…

Sometimes that is not enough: In this rocket malfunction, a part was installed upside down. It had arrows indicating the direction and only fit in its place in one orientation. Still, on finding that it didn't immediately fit a technician forced it in: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/proton_glonass49.html#culprit By July 13, investigators simulated the improper installation of the DUS angular velocity sensors on the a…

You can't do much against an engineer willing to weld and cut their way through the parts.

Similarly, we can't do anything about people using a soldering iron to make customizations to their motherboards. Everything that happens, it's on them.

Re: Nasa Says Metals Fraud Caused $700M Satellite Failure

#225

Post by Dylan16807 »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #129
imtringued wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you value human time by $1 million per year then that is a waste of 700 man years or 8 people's worth. Of course they got paid and received "free" training for their job so it wasn't a complete waste but there certainly are better things to use those man years on, like a functioning satellite.

You can't extrapolate from the price of a human spending 8 hours following limited corporate instructions to the value of their other 16 hours. First of all, value and price diverge for many reasons all the time. Secondly, most people on Earth produce more value after work than during, but that value is not fully priced or marketed yet (try as captains of industry may). That used to be more true in the colonial power…

> Humans are invaluable.

They're really not, as far as managing risk goes. If you try to avoid assigning a value, you're going to do a worse job, and more people will probably die.

Re: Nasa Says Metals Fraud Caused $700M Satellite Failure

#227

Post by caprese »

Eliezer wrote: post #95
caprese wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I enjoyed that book, I felt it kind of just "ended" though. It had some interesting history and insights but then the pages just kind of ran out

Sometimes real life lacks a satisfying conclusion?

Sensationalized dramas generally dont make it to the presses that way

Re: Nasa Says Metals Fraud Caused $700M Satellite Failure

#228

Post by lotsofpulp »

shereadsthenews wrote: post #203
lotsofpulp wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where in the US can a non governmental entity charge someone with a crime?

Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, and Idaho among other jurisdictions.

Interesting, I wonder how that even works. Can anyone just "charge" someone with a crime? I always thought the district attorney or someone similarly qualified and presumably unbiased had to vet the evidence and decide whether or not to charge someone.

Re: Nasa Says Metals Fraud Caused $700M Satellite Failure

#229

Post by fencepost »

elliekelly wrote: post #173
fencepost wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you can't charge a "person" with a crime if that "person" isn't there to defend themselves Individuals charged with crimes are defended by attorneys without visibly participating in their criminal trials all the time. I can't imagine a criminal conviction of a corporation would dissolve the entity. No need to dissolve it, simply place it under the same kind of restrictions that someone in prison is placed under - no…

> Individuals charged with crimes are defended by attorneys without visibly participating in their criminal trials all the time. Lack of visible participation is far from lack of participation. In the US due process requires the defendant's presence to commence a criminal trial. Once charges have been brought the defendant has a right (that can in some circumstances be waived) to attend and participate in every stage…

Lack of visible participation is far from lack of participation. In the US due process requires the defendant's presence to commence a criminal trial.

Understood, but unless my perception is wrong there are many cases where individuals are defended without significant participation - whether it be because they're (arguably) incompetent to participate, decline to participate or for other reasons.

Criminal charges do not require the assent of the charged to proceed through the system.

Re: Nasa Says Metals Fraud Caused $700M Satellite Failure

#230

Post by TallGuyShort »

cr0sh wrote: post #149
TallGuyShort wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the kind of crowd you end up running with if you do things like trying marijuana in college. edit: Real question, though. I'm often called to report for jury duty but have yet to actually sit on a jury. My understanding is the jury is explicitly charged to reach a "guilty of accusation" or "not guilty" decision. And sentencing is a whole separate phase of the trial in which the jury is not involved. I'm sure t…

> am I missing something about how you were asked as a juror to consider that sentence? It was probably asked during the "voir dire" phase; that's where if you actually perform jury duty and have to go down to the court, your group might be called in to sit for "voir dire", where the lawyers for each side (prosecution and defendant) ask each potential jury member certain questions regarding the case. The questions ar…

I find your comments about FIJA maddening. Providing alleged victims and the accused a fair trial is one of the only things I think government should be involved in, but ours can't even get that right.
Post reply on HN